Matchstick, The More Open Chromecast, Destroyed By DRM, Announces Plans To Return All Funds
from the drm-sucks dept
A year ago, a project called Matchstick launched on Kickstarter -- designed to be an open, WiFi connected HDMI stick, built on Firefox OS, to let you stream over the top video to your TV. It was touted as a more open version of the Chromecast device. It got over 17,000 backers (including me) and raised nearly $500,000. It was supposed to be delivered in February of this year but was pushed back after the Matchstick team announced that it had decided to build in DRM support. This angered plenty of people who, quite rightly, noted that they had bought into the vision of an open platform, rather than one that furthered the cause of DRM. However, the Matchstick team had weighed that against the fact that many popular video streaming services, including Netflix, require DRM, and decided that it couldn't exist without DRM. The plan, the team announced, was to ship in August.Well, now it's August, and... the project is dead and Matchstick is refunding everyone's money. Because DRM.
After struggling with the DRM development based on Firefox OS for most of this year, we realize continued development of DRM, though showing early signs of promise, will be a long and difficult road. We have come to the conclusion that we will not be able to reliably predict the completion date of the DRM development without significantly more research, development and integration.Not surprisingly, many of the comments in response to this are asking why the team bothered with DRM in the first place. Multiple people are asking the Matchstick team to go back to its original promise and just ship a device without DRM, because that's what they backed and that's what they want. The vast, vast, vast majority of comments look pretty similar to the following:
We feel the only responsible thing to do now is to refund 100% of the pledge money to our backers. You have been very patient with us, and we feel announcing another major delay in the Matchstick delivery would not be fair to our backers. We apologize for not being able to update you sooner.
Once again, can someone remind me of a single positive thing that has come from DRM?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drm, firefox os, matchstick, ott, streaming
Companies: matchstick
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Define 'positive'
Well that depends, does any of the following strike you as a good thing?
- Infinite duration copyrights, no matter the current duration, allowing you to lock up a work forever.
- Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine, barring any ability of a customer to resell what they bought from you.
- Similar to the above, being able to severely restrict what someone is able to do with your product, regardless of whether or not the actions desired would be legal without the DRM in place.
- Provides a single point of failure for your product, such that if the DRM fails to work for whatever reason, the product itself is bricked, and utterly useless.
- Makes piracy a much more attractive choice by only affecting paying customers, making the paid version noticeably worse and providing incentive for even those that want to pay to pirate instead if they want a working product.
And probably the #1 'benefit' of DRM:
- Allows those selling it to rake in the cash like bandit kings, after they convince a company that the best way to build a professional relationship of mutual respect with their customers is to treat them as criminals by infecting their product with intrusive and restrictive malware/DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define 'positive'
DRM's only "benefit" is to quote some industry reps "keeping honest consumers honest". And even that is eventually defeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define 'positive'
More like "keeping honest consumers exasperated" and "keeping bootleggers out", namely out of the temptation to meddle with legitimate copies that are likely to brick their systems, scan its contents and report them. Why pay money just to get the most expensive, invasive, and destructive malware on your systems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Define 'positive'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define 'positive'
Both I'd say. DRM without the anti-circumvention clause means you can break it without worry, while the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA without DRM would be pointless. One requires the other, and vice-versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define 'positive'
DRM's only "benefit" is to quote some industry reps "keeping honest consumers honest". And even that is eventually defeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirated experience > Honest experience
Both of these discourage the honest from staying honest, once there is a vector by which they can get dishonest material.
There's also the factor of convenience: If I own an optical version of a movie, the business wants me to buy again for any new version of the movie or a replacement of broken media (even though it's a license). And they don't want me to rip the media to data form so I can play it on my mobile device.
I'm sorry, but no-one's going to tell me I can't put rum in my Coca-cola, or require that I use proprietary overpriced, poor-quality rum.
So yeah, there's actually a lot of impetus for the honest to resort to pirate sources in order to get their movie on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define 'positive'
>> - Infinite duration copyrights,
That's legal issue, not technical
>> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine
No it does not. Legal issue, too.
>> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
>> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice
I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.
In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define 'positive'
DRM does not have built-in expiry provisions, and after copyright ceases, DRM circumvention does not become legal. How much are you going to bet that being in possession of a DRM-encumbered medium with expired copyright will give you legal standing to sue the producer for copyright misuse?
Not a "single point of failure" because I can legally ask people to open the door and/or crack the door and/or put in a lock of my own choosing when I lose the key.
Yup. That's what I do. And the industry attributes their loss of sales to "piracy" which makes as much sense as Chanel accusing me of piracy because I forego perfume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define 'positive'
You're splitting hairs. Whether it's technical or legal, it's still something that DRM enables. In the absence of DRM, does a company/seller have the ability described? No? Then you can attribute it to the DRM
No it does not. Legal issue, too.
See above response.
You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
Locks on your house and car actually serve a purpose, and benefit the owner. DRM punishes the owner, and if it fails it punishes them even more. A lock on a car or house provides protection for the car/house owner, DRM provides 'protection' against them, and ensures they never own what they thought they purchased.
I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.
Right, let me put it this way. Say a store had a problem with shoplifting. Say in response they set up a system that only affected paying customers, making their shopping experience drastically worse, and did absolutely nothing to even mildly inconvenience the actual shoplifters.
That's DRM.
It's not a matter of 'inconvinience', it's a matter of who it's affecting, and more importantly, who it isn't. When the ones paying you are getting a worse product and/or experience that the ones who aren't, you're doing something wrong.
In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.
Well, yes. Why would someone like malware?
As for 'Don't like it, don't buy'? I don't. If it has DRM, I give it a pass. If it might have DRM and I can't tell? I give it a pass. Saves me a lot of money that I can spend on people and companies that actually deserve it.
However, this doesn't stop me from being affected by it, because the same type of people that think DRM is a great idea also love to think of even worse way to screw people over, and they generally don't pay too much attention to who is affected. It also doesn't stop DRM from being an insanely stupid idea, thanks to the whole 'Punishes everyone but the claimed target' bit, a fact that always bears repeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define 'positive'
> That's legal issue, not technical
No, he's misusing "copyrights" but the issue is technical: DRM prevents copying, even when doing so would be legal.
>> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine
> No it does not. Legal issue, too.
I agree: it side-steps FSD, it doesn't undermine it.
>> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
> You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
No, because those locks, if they fail, can be easily broken or circumvented (by breaking a window). Most physical locks are more a social construct than actual security. DRM is usually truly difficult, unless poorly implemented. Look at it this way: DRM equivalent in the real world would be having someone inspect your house and then check to see if you have the proper access rights before allowing you to read a book you bought. The lock on your house is similar to the password on your computer; DRM is about a second party having control over how you access things already in your possession.
>> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice
> I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is [much] simpler.
Bad analogy. Using my analogy from above, it would be like obtaining a pirate copy of a book so that the second party never even thinks to inspect your house, you never have to let them in, and you never have to ensure your records with them are still accessible in order to read your book (that you would have bought, except for all the restrictions). Another (loose) analogy might be using solar panels to generate your own electricity instead of having to pay a utility a monthly fee for the privilege. If you really want to stretch it, it might be running an electrical cord to a public plug to avoid paying for your electricity -- but that leaves out the D and M from DRM, only the rights (copyright or distribution right/property right) are affected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, a few temporary jobs for programmers and a bit more for lawyers. with the public paying for both.
It is really not something to be proud of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>
>Yes, a few temporary jobs for programmers and a bit more
>for lawyers. with the public paying for both.
>It is really not something to be proud of.
Keeps the guys a Techdirt busy, too - gives 'em something to write about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe, but I doubt it. It's just another lofty Kickstarter that was made by individuals that bit off more than they could chew. Blaming DRM is a good scapegoat. Lucklily there are FOSS projects like Kodi and OSMC which have bigger communities than this would have ever dreamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only thing that comes to mind is the saying "You can't fix stupid" is one of the greatest scientific facts ever discovered by man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One single thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One single thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One single thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The unfortunate side effect of not supporting DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loving the benefits
Now obviously it should be clear of my sarcasm for loving DRM (otherwise it is now). Let's all just get in the Pharmaceutical industry while we're at it, since they are copyright/DRM pros. Specifically referring to (for those that don't know), that they keep their expensive drugs on the market by delaying generics from joining the market. It's like implementing DRM and saying you can't do this because they said so, and you have no choice in the matter. Especially for the people who have to have the drugs.
It's not enough to make it difficult (or impossible) to get, but they also have to kick them in the nuts too. Next up, they implement DRM (Diseases Ready for the Masses), so they can suck up more money. More sarcasm there of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalisnm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalisnm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalisnm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's cut deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's cut deeper.
Back then, this meant the difference between authors benefiting financially from their work and authors - in some cases - dying in poverty.
It's debatable - and I doubt anyone can honestly put figures to it - but I'm reasonably certain it incentivised the creation and publication of new work, provided a legal framework for the creators to be identified as such and provided creators with the chance to make a living from doing so, just as it was supposed to do.
These days, of course, the same middleman companies are now aggressive multinational corporations, synonymous with rampant abuse of copyright, with actual content creators and the general public being screwed over at every turn.
But that abuse doesn't take away from copyrights ancient past, where it served as a positive force for the public good - and it's a damn shame that corporate greed has so thoroughly destroyed both copyrights credibility and it's ability to serve for the good of us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557
It also increased the number living in ignorant bliss, and made the guild of printers that got the copyright monopoly rich.
Queen Mary is the original creator of copyright, and she did so on May 4, 1557.
(*) The way she did it is why she is known as Bloody Mary
Recommended reading on the subject: http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/02/history-of-copyright-part-2-tudoric-feud/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we should try cutting to the bone...
I keep thinking of Charles Goodyear who made some critical advancements in vulcanization yet died penniless. Our system seems to less reward innovative inventions rather innovative ways for the business-savvy and financially enabled to steal ideas from their creative sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me rephrase that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557
The legal right of a single company - literally just one - to determine, censor and publish all of Britain's printed works is a far cry from what came into being later.
Copyright - more-or-less as we know it today - came into being with the Statute of Anne, which was a lot more civilised than its predecessor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557
"For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright."
should read
"For all that they share similar names and terms, what came into being as a result of Mary's Stationers Monopoly and the subsequent Licensing of the Press Act 1662, bare little resemblance to modern copyright."
Techdirt and the edit button. When will they ever meet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little resemblance to modern copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557
Oh, please excuse us, we thought you wrote actually "in earlier times". We all hate it when Techdirt changes what we wrote like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's cut deeper.
Yah, if it weren't for copyright classics like Shakespeare's works would have never been written. Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see any good reason why DRM of this kind should not be reclassified as malware and it's use banned.
Tie it to the next copyright extension the maximalists demand - if they want the bad, they'll have to take the good along with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM Benefits
Let's be honest. None of those apps would have been developed, and none of that content would be available outside of piracy without DRM. Nobody was going to get contractual rights to stream the content without some form of protection.
It's that simple... it may be annoying. It may be cumbersome. It may limit your options... but without it... we'd still be renting from Blockbuster and rewinding VHS tapes.
Sure, I could open a VPN and Torrent away and have ultimate freedom, but as far as legal options go, I'm glad there are some, since I don't mind PAYING for content, since if we all stopped doing that... there wouldn't really be much content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM Benefits
[citation needed]
Seriously that's like saying we couldn't have FM radio because someone might dare record it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not arguing DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eliminate DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]